Play-by-Play: How the Prosecution Failed to Get Hard Time for Zapata

 

SAN ANGELO, TX – The final stretch of the Zapata trial unfolded with the jury deliberating Zapata's sentence into the late hours of Wednesday night. Shortly after 11 p.m., after nearly five hours of deliberation, those in the courtroom consisting mostly of Ray Zapata’s closest friends and family received the news that Zapata would only be serving six months in jail.

Zapata was found guilty of forging the will of John Sullivan, stealing the proceeds of the $8.2 million estate*, and laundering money from Sullivan’s estate for his own use

(* The prosecution used the figure of $5 million throughout the trial as it was the known value of the estate at the time of the crime. Subsequently, the State’s forensic audit determined the value of the estate in excess of $8 million).

Yesterday began with the State and the defense attorneys presenting witnesses they believed would accurately represent the 'real Ray Zapata'. The State began their sentencing arguments by recalling investigator Texas Ranger Nick Hanna to the stand. According to Hanna, during the course of his investigation, he encountered another instance in which Zapata was involved probating another will of an elderly lady who had been a close friend of him and his wife, Julie. The prosecution attempted to make a connection stating that this was another example in which Zapata had tried to raid an estate.

During the cross-examination of the defense, the jury learned that Zapata had been the caretaker in the elderly lady toward the end of her life, and that the motion he had filed was to ensure that part of the money left in the estate was donated to Catholic charities, as was her wish. In her will, she had left Zapata and his wife a Steinway grand piano and a Persian rug. It was unclear if Zapata’s motion had been approved or the outcome of the probate case, and the connection the State attempted seemed to fall on deaf ears.

The state’s second witness was Father Fabian Rosette, founder and superior at Mount Carmel Hermitage in Christoval. According to Father Fabian, he had been called by Ray Zapata and asked if the brothers would be interested in the religious artifacts left behind by a deceased individual. Father Fabian and a few of the hermitage brothers then went to Sullivan’s house and picked up the items that he had left behind and were unaware of the charges of child sex offenses Sullivan faced at the time of his death. Nor did Father Fabian know the will had not yet been probated when the religious order had helped clean up the home. The father also seemed surprised when he learned that Zapata secretly recorded their interactions while they were in the house.

He discussed the character of Zapata with the court and revealed the hermitage was not closely acquainted with him in a personal manner, but that they knew him to be a religious man who had always invited them to their restaurant when they came to town.

Courtroom testimony also revealed Father Fabian had talked to John Sullivan on several occasions in which Sullivan asked him to perform a mass completely in Latin, as was the custom before Vatican II. The father explained that was not possible and, after several phone calls between him and Sullivan, he asked him to stop contacting them because he could not fulfill Sullivan’s request.

The topic of Sullivan’s cremation was revisited. Father Fabian explained that while traditional Catholics may have preferred traditional burials, the church has allowed cremation for over 20 years. The only way that Sullivan’s remains would rest at the monastery would be his body was cremated, he testified. Father Fabian explained that, as a man of God, it was his duty to forgive those who repent and ask for the forgiveness of God. He stated while the hermitage was saddened to be associated with someone like Sullivan, they would never deny his remains a holy resting place.

The state rested and it was the defense’s turn to shake things up in the courtroom.

The first defense witness was local restaurant owner John Fuentes of Fuentes Downtown Café. Fuentes knew Zapata since they both were kids. He said Ray Zapata always was been there for him and that he considered him someone who helped anyone in need. He recalled an occasion when Zapata personally drove him to Houston to a doctor’s appointment when no one else had been able to. He also described the close relationship he knew Zapata to have with the Catholic Church and his parish community. This seemed to prompt prosecutor Shane Attaway to ask if “Christians could commit felonies?” He continued, saying what Fuentes would do if he had a family member that went through the theft of a family member’s estate. Fuentes replied that he could only speak to what he knew personally of Zapata, but that in all the years he knew him, he had always displayed sound character and upright values.

Attaway seemed to conclude his cross examination by asking “Do you know what Ray does 24/7?” Fuentes replied he didn’t. Then he simply stated, “People don’t tell you about the bad things they do.”

Linda Shoemaker, a former DA who had also worked for the Attorney General’s office prosecuting child support cases as well as cases of abuse and other crimes, riled-up the prosecution team. Shoemaker detailed the good man she knew Ray Zapata to be. She stated her opinion of his good character was gained from her personal experience with his family over several years. She considered herself a close friend of the Zapata’s and spoke about the impact she had seen Zapata have in the community. She went on to call him, “A man of God who was a positive force in the community” and ultimately blamed John Young as the real culprit in this matter.

Sparks flew during cross-examination after State prosecutor John White asked her opinion on the verdict, essentially implying that she was not an impartial witness. Shoemaker explained that even though she did not agree with the verdict, she respected the jury’s decision. She said she was sure not even the jury was convinced Zapata stole $5 million like the State constantly argued. She went on to opine that according to what she understood of the trial, since she had not been present in previous days, even the State’s own witness was not 100-percent certain that the will had been written by Zapata. After stating this several times, her words seem to strike a nerve with the prosecutor who asked in a slightly elevated voice, “So they [the jury] got it wrong?”

Shoemaker repeated that she respected the jury and that in her opinion as a prosecutor she believed Zapata to be “an ideal candidate for probation.” She went on to add, “You are from Austin sir, you don’t know how Ray is perceived in our community.”

As the exchange continued, Shoemaker once again stated that the state expert had not been completely sure of the analysis. Assistant prosecutor White appeared to get angry, and asked in what appeared to a be a very annoyed tone, “How would you know? You weren’t here [during the trial.]”

White also asked if she believed it was okay that Zapata had aided in appropriating the money that was allegedly supposed to go to needy. Shoemaker responded if they were sure those were Sullivan’s true wishes or they he had just mentioned it, after all it was her understanding that he was “a pretty sleazy man.” After her testimony, the defense rested.

In their closing arguments, the counselors used very different approaches when talking to the jury about what they believed was the appropriate sentence for the crimes. The defense, in contrast, took a very calm approach as Snodgrass explained to the jury that while he respected their verdict, he was saddened that he had been unable to “present the evidence in the light he saw it.”

He asked the jury to accept the testimony they had heard that afternoon, to consider it, and allow Zapata to be a candidate for probation. He thanked them for their long deliberation because to him, he said, it signaled they had taken their time to consider the complex components of the case in into their consideration.

Snodgrass reiterated that Zapata was not a violent criminal that would be menace to society, and allowing him to serve part of sentence while on probation would be positive for the community.

The state approached the situation in a very different manner and in a slightly more aggressive tone. Prosecutor Attaway began by telling the jury Ray Zapata was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

They argued that he was white-collar criminal who did bad things, “when no one was looking.” He reiterated to the jury that these types of people, like Zapata, are the ones who blend into society as they commit crimes. These are the ones the public needs be wary of.  In a very passionate manner, he asked the jury what type of message they wanted to send to the rest of the county and that their decisions would “speak volumes” of what the people of this area would tolerate. He stated that Zapata “uses people” and that they shouldn’t fall for the “shield of faith and religion” that Zapata, through his character witnesses, was trying to hide behind.

Attaway asked the jury to remember that Zapata could have blew the whistle, stopped the probating of the will, and done the right thing, but that he never did. He stated greed had been the motivator behind Zapata’s actions. He ended by asking the jury to deliver a verdict of double digits (more than 10 years) on the count of first-degree felony for theft, as this would eliminate Zapata’s chance of a probated sentence, forcing Zapata to serve hard time in prison. 

His final statement of his closing argument was to ask the jury if they were willing to ride down the elevator with Ray Zapata and let him go back into the world knowing about the crimes he was just found guilty of committing?

Second chair prosecutor John White continued with the same aggressive tone and reminded the jury that Ray Zapata was the one who forged the will, not John Young. He also implied that he believed if John Young had forged the will, it would have been done in a better fashion than what was presented to the county clerk and would have been more convincing.  He might have gotten away with it. He alleged that all the family and friends that were in the courtroom supporting Ray Zapata didn’t know who he really was and even though witnesses had stated that Zapata was a Godly man. “The Bible warned of false prophets,” White warned.

He reminded the jury that their sentencing decision will impact the way “John Young slept tonight” and that it would be a reminder for him every day of the consequences he faced until his own trial begins in October. He concluded by reminding the jury, “There is no message too strong for his case” and it was up to them to make a difference in their county.

Throughout the testimony and the hours of deliberation, his family and close friends who offered their support joined Zapata in the hallway outside the courtroom on the second floor of the courthouse.

A bit past 11 p.m., the bailiff announced a verdict was in. The small courtroom was packed with Zapata’s family and some of the law enforcement personnel who worked on the case, along with three representatives of the media.

Judge Brock Jones read the jury’s sentencing recommendations, one-by-one, for each count. The wording of the sentencing was confusing for those not familiar with legal terms. “Community supervision” was a term used for probation, which the jury recommended after the five-year sentence was read for the first-degree felony. No one seemed sure what that meant.

Ray Zapata knew. The look of relief on his face was evident. But he was facing the bench, not the large crowd of supporters behind him. Not all saw the signs of relief his face was expressing.

After reading the sentences and releasing the jury from its duty, Judge Jones thought out loud. “I think I am going to recess this court until we can formally conclude the trial. I need to check my calendar first.” Prosecutor Shane Attaway expressed the same need. During the interlude, Zapata turned around and leaned over the rail and whispered in the ear of a family member. Presumably he was explaining his sentencing means he would only serve six months in jail. The rest of the sentence involved five years probation. As the word spread from the front pew towards the back, smiles began to appear on many faces in the courtroom.

After Snodgrass, the prosecutors, and Judge Brock coordinated their schedules, Judge Brock ordered a final hearing where Zapata will be formally sentenced for Tuesday, May 23 at 9 a.m.

After the hearing, prosecutor Attaway said that the sentencing recommendations returned by the jury likely mean Zapata will spend a maximum of six months in jail. He refused to comment further because, he said, he will be the prosecutor of John Young in October and it would not be appropriate to comment.

The jury recommended the following sentences:

  • Count 1 – Forgery. Sentence of 6 months in state jail and a $10,000 fine. No probation recommended.
  • Count 2 — Forgery. Sentence of 6 months in state jail and a $10,000 fine. No probation recommended.
  • Count 3 — Theft. Sentence of 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. The jury recommended that since Zapata had a clean criminal record that the sentence be probated under community supervision.
  • Count 4 — Money Laundering. Sentence of 2 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. The jury recommended probation in lieu of confinement.

 

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Did this priest sabotage the state's attorney? The following sentences contradict Sullivan's belief regarding cremation: "The topic of Sullivan’s cremation was revisited. Father Fabian explained that while traditional Catholics may have preferred traditional burials, the church (sic) has allowed cremation for over 20 years."

First off, Traditional Catholics, i.e., those who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II, do not merely prefer traditional burials, it is a matter of Church law. There is no option for cremation except for extraordinary circumstances. The priest's non sequitur that the Church "has allowed" cremation in recent decades is as irrelevant as it is untrue. It is irrelevant because Sullivan never followed the post-Vatican II teachings of the Church; what the modern Church allows was never important to Sullivan. It is untrue because even the modern Church merely tolerates cremation. There has never been a wholesale endorsement of the practice. This priest most likely gave the wrong impression to the jury that Zapata and Sullivan did nothing wrong is having Sullivan cremated.

Now, I want to comment on the character of Zapata, which people from outside San Angelo apparently don't know how to perceive. It takes a special gnosis found only in San Angelo to understand the divinity of fellow citizens. People from Austin? Well, you just don't get it. Let's look at what we know about Zapata's character, what even the defense did not attempt to dispute. 1) Even Zapata's attorney, in cross-examining Joe Hernandez, admitted that Zapata was involved in the Sullivan will scam: "Snodgrass then laid into Hernandez with a line of questioning that suggested Hernandez was cut out of the Sullivan money, too. All of this was Hernandez’s motivation for blowing the whistle." And this: “Why didn’t you contest the will then?” Snodgrass [Zapata's defense attorney] asked. “Was it because you were still hopeful they’d cut you in on the deal?” 2) Zapata took a picture of a dead, naked man he was supposed to be taking care of, and then sent that pic over his phone to another person. He then stole a missalette which--what are the chances?!?--contained a will Sullivan had written to Zapata's good friend, John Young. Then, and only then, did he contact the authorities. What a guy! San Angelo must be so proud to have that sort of person in its midst, to say nothing of how proud his family must be. "Hey, Grandpa, tell us the story about the time you took that picture of the dead naked guy you were paid by the hour to keep watch over and how you took a little book from the dead man's home and were shocked to discover that it contained a will for your sleazy friend that also included money for you!"

You know what's strange? Here's what: Let's say I'm a defense attorney hired by a wealthy man who's facing some serious charges. And let's say that these charges have to do with crimes against children. And let's say that no one likes my client. Unfortunately, he had the cash to bail himself out, because it would be better for me to have my client alive, since dead clients don't pay bills. So let's say I decide to hire Ray Zapata and pay him $100 per hour, with the instruction that he not let my client get in any trouble.

OK, stop here for a second. If I'm Young, I'd prefer my client, who has a lot of money and a lot of serious charges, be back in jail awaiting trial. He would be placed in protective custody to keep him safe. In a perverse way, I would hope he does get in trouble and have his bond revoked. Why keep him in a community that despises him? Now I can bill-bill-bill him to fund my serious financial needs.

Now let's pick back up. But that's not what happened here. Instead, Young hired Zapata to--ahem--watch Sullivan so he stayed OUT of jail. And what did happen? Sullivan died--darn the luck! Most people would have said "Zapata! Why weren't you around?! I heard you didn't even call the authorities for a long time and didn't try to resuscitate him! And why did you send a pic of his dead, naked body? What's wrong with you? How could you?!? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But, as we've seen, the most improbable document since the Donation of Constantine showed up in the form of a will attributed to John Sullivan witnesses by Zapata and making Young, a man Sullivan barely knew, the sole beneficiary.

I mean, even if Zapata gave you a ride one time when you needed it, do you actually believe this insane story? Fine, back your friend or your relative. But, deep down, you don't really believe this nonsense, do you?

Now, Zapata has a choice in the remaining years of his life. He can repent and live the life that he is not used to leading, or else he'll fall back into old habits.

If I were the judge, I'd tack on the longest probation possible next Tuesday. Something tells me this won't be the last time Zapata will be standing before a judge and jury.

P.S.: Does anyone else think Judge Ben Nolen's behavior during the probate of Sullivan's will was strange? I'm no attorney, but how is it that, according to testimony from Judge Nolen's clerk, Judge Nolen and a "very nervous" Chris Hartman"appeared [to have] spoken about this [Sullivan's will] before"? If you review the Tom Green County court records of the case, there is a mystifying litany of utter refusals by Judge Nolen to even consider that anything was amiss. Tom Green County: Gnostic headquarters of virtue in America.

^
^
^
Here is my outsider’s perspective of this situation.
[“Now, I want to comment on the character of Zapata, which people from outside San Angelo apparently don't know how to perceive. It takes a special gnosis found only in San Angelo to understand the divinity of fellow citizens. People from Austin? Well, you just don't get it.”]
I’ll assume a privileged white wrote this, so I’ll designate it as the first problem regarding the ignorant majority of whites in San Angelo. These egotistical, self-righteous, ignorant, and at times racist attitudes are the reasons why this town never progresses. This leads to the stunted growth of innovative knowledge this town drastically needs, but that's a different story.
[“Let's look at what we know about Zapata's character, what even the defense did not attempt to dispute. 1) Even Zapata's attorney, in cross-examining Joe Hernandez, admitted that Zapata was involved in the Sullivan will scam: "Snodgrass then laid into Hernandez with a line of questioning that suggested Hernandez was cut out of the Sullivan money, too. All of this was Hernandez’s motivation for blowing the whistle." And this: “Why didn’t you contest the will then?” Snodgrass [Zapata's defense attorney] asked. “Was it because you were still hopeful they’d cut you in on the deal?” ]
So how exactly did Zapata’s attorney admit to him being involved? By emphasizing on Hernandez’s motive? I assume here your critique is underdeveloped. Maybe just maybe that is what attorneys do as a formal interrogation to extend testimony, and maybe also that is why they call it a cross-examination?
[“You know what's strange? Here's what: Let's say I'm a defense attorney hired by a wealthy man who's facing some serious charges. And let's say that these charges have to do with crimes against children. And let's say that no one likes my client. Unfortunately, he had the cash to bail himself out, because it would be better for me to have my client alive, since dead clients don't pay bills. So let's say I decide to hire Ray Zapata and pay him $100 per hour, with the instruction that he not let my client get in any trouble.
OK, stop here for a second. If I'm Young, I'd prefer my client, who has a lot of money and a lot of serious charges, be back in jail awaiting trial. He would be placed in protective custody to keep him safe. In a perverse way, I would hope he does get in trouble and have his bond revoked. Why keep him in a community that despises him? Now I can bill-bill-bill him to fund my serious financial needs.”]
He didn't do that because they were friends you dip-sh, which proves why Sullivan would write the will making him the sole beneficiary.

[“Now let's pick back up. But that's not what happened here. Instead, Young hired Zapata to--ahem--watch Sullivan so he stayed OUT of jail. And what did happen? Sullivan died--darn the luck! Most people would have said "Zapata! Why weren't you around?! I heard you didn't even call the authorities for a long time and didn't try to resuscitate him! And why did you send a pic of his dead, naked body? What's wrong with you? How could you?!? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ]
Liability issues could have been the motive to take the picture. People take breaks from they’re jobs, at any job. Lets just put it this way Sullivan didn't die on Zapata’s clock!
[“But, as we've seen, the most improbable document since the Donation of Constantine showed up in the form of a will attributed to John Sullivan witnesses by Zapata and making Young, a man Sullivan barely knew, the sole beneficiary. “]
For a brief moment step outside your comfort zone and put yourself in Sullivan’s shoes. Why would anyone in they’re right mind would want the state/city be beneficiaries of your properties? Sullivan didn't have close or distant family members, so making your attorney and your caregiver (which by the way at time are the only ones that befriend him regardless of they're intent) the sole beneficiary makes decent sense.
[“I mean, even if Zapata gave you a ride one time when you needed it, do you actually believe this insane story? Fine, back your friend or your relative. But, deep down, you don't really believe this nonsense, do you?Now, Zapata has a choice in the remaining years of his life. He can repent and live the life that he is not used to leading, or else he'll fall back into old habits.”]
If you were such a good Christian you wouldn't judge this man as harsh as you do at a time when he is down!
I definitely not defending anyone, but I don't think a man should be prosecuted because the state feels like they’re getting screwed over by not getting any of the money Sullivan left behind. Also that thing they taught us in preschool about not judging a book by its cover absolutely applies here.

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close